More Never Trumpers waking up to the Russia collusion farce, when will you?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

They did such a good job of rigging it for her didn't they?
Wow the logic of that just floors me.

That's why we need to get past hyper partisanship. One can be a liberal, and critic of Trump, yet know that the Russiam collusion narrative has a lot of holes and to me seems like a big DNC political strategy. Criticizing Muh Russia is not equivalent to supporting Trump.
a reply to: face23785

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: face23785
Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

Remember, Trumps words aren’t worth the air used to say them, so you’re going to have to do better than his statements and the theories of the right wing echo chamber that are based off of them.

Well, the NYT and Washington post articles pretty much admitted that the FBI sent a spy to get info from trump team members.

And I havent seen that disputed in any credible way, only the claim it was an "informant" not spy, which is laughable.

Bit I dont mind people being skeptical.

So you are saying if it does come out that the FBI sent Stefan Halper to get info on people like Page Papadopoulos and others, then you will change your mind?

Links to those articles that say without a doubt that the FBI sent spies into the Trump campaign?

I have already told you, the articles use the term "informant" which is just a clever way to try to differentiate this from the word spy.

But yes the articles exist showing that.

Many of them.

Here is the first one from the NYT.

mobile.nytimes.com...

Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling.

So they were after one of his advisors, and not Trump. Anything saying they were after Trump personally? Or are we making the leap in logic that people Trump surrounds himself with being under surveillance means he, himself was the target?

Those are two different things, which the president is trying to conflate to control the narrative the way he wants.

Now wait, you are now changing what you said.

Allow me to remind you.

Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

You said if it was shown people in trups campaign were spied on, you would change your mind.

That is what this artilce showed.

Now you want proof they were directly after trump?

I think that is not necessary to show abuse. Were the watergate people spying on just directly documents from MCGovern, or were they disgusting and criminal for spying on behavior of the campaign in general?

If the FBI was spying on trumps team, it would have clearly effected trump himself in a very negative way.

And by your own standards of what you said about "Trumps campaign" potentially being spied on, this should change your mind.

a reply to: Sillyolme

"She won the popular vote."

Seems like the apt reply here as it is muttered whenever an opening presents itself.

Trump makes the investigation into himself relevant by attacking it so much. If he would just sit back, never give it publicity or a mention and act like he’s confident there’s nothing there, it would probably go away.

That is, if there is nothing there. Instead we’re seeing a very different reaction. Which is telling in itself.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: face23785
Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

Remember, Trumps words aren’t worth the air used to say them, so you’re going to have to do better than his statements and the theories of the right wing echo chamber that are based off of them.

Reasonable request.

At this point, it appears to say it was "spying" is a disingenuous and wrong. The campaign was not the focus of the investigation. It was people they were surrounding themselves with that were.

Exactly. I doubt I’ll get any sort of actual evidence because, well there isn’t any.

This whole spy business is based off a disingenuous tweet by the president that people jumped to validate, using anything they could.You don’t get to the truth by starting with a conclusion and then searching for evidence to fit it. That’s what religious nuts do to try to make sense of things, and it seems Trump cultists do it too.

There is an investigation into Russian Meddling, against Trump. I invite you to look into that a bit with your bits of wisdom in mind.

That's semantics regarding "informant." Infiltrating a campaign or other and secretly providing intelligence would be considered espionage in any other setting, whether corporate or in foreign affairs.
a reply to: introvert

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
That's semantics regarding "infornant." Infiltrating a campaign or other and secretly providing intelligence would be considered espionage in any other setting, whether corporate or in foreign affairs.
a reply to: introvert

Of course they all know that.

Imagine the outrage these very same people would show if Trump placed spies in his opponents campaign, and then said it was ok because they were just informants.

There attempts at using semantics to jsutify this behavior is appalling.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: face23785
Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

Remember, Trumps words aren’t worth the air used to say them, so you’re going to have to do better than his statements and the theories of the right wing echo chamber that are based off of them.

Well, the NYT and Washington post articles pretty much admitted that the FBI sent a spy to get info from trump team members.

And I havent seen that disputed in any credible way, only the claim it was an "informant" not spy, which is laughable.

Bit I dont mind people being skeptical.

So you are saying if it does come out that the FBI sent Stefan Halper to get info on people like Page Papadopoulos and others, then you will change your mind?

Links to those articles that say without a doubt that the FBI sent spies into the Trump campaign?

I have already told you, the articles use the term "informant" which is just a clever way to try to differentiate this from the word spy.

But yes the articles exist showing that.

Many of them.

Here is the first one from the NYT.

mobile.nytimes.com...

Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling.

So they were after one of his advisors, and not Trump. Anything saying they were after Trump personally? Or are we making the leap in logic that people Trump surrounds himself with being under surveillance means he, himself was the target?

Those are two different things, which the president is trying to conflate to control the narrative the way he wants.

Now wait, you are now changing what you said.

Allow me to remind you.

Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

You said if it was shown people in trups campaign were spied on, you would change your mind.

That is what this artilce showed.

Now you want proof they were directly after trump?

I think that is not necessary to show abuse. Were the watergate people spying on just directly documents from MCGovern, or were they disgusting and criminal for spying on behavior of the campaign in general?

If the FBI was spying on trumps team, it would have clearly effected trump himself in a very negative way.

And by your own standards of what you said about "Trumps campaign" potentially being spied on, this should change your mind.

The relevant parts for context are the words before the ones you bolded, and the ones after. Picking out two parts of that statement and trying to make it say what you want doesn’t work. And is part of the problem.

Nothing you or the article said leads toward any evidence of the Obama administration planting a spy in Trumps campaign. Which is what this is supposedly about. I mean, that’s what Trump himself said. And it’s what I said I wanted to see evidence of. If there is any.

I thought it's admitted now they had an "informant?"
a reply to: underwerks

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: face23785
Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

Remember, Trumps words aren’t worth the air used to say them, so you’re going to have to do better than his statements and the theories of the right wing echo chamber that are based off of them.

Reasonable request.

At this point, it appears to say it was "spying" is a disingenuous and wrong. The campaign was not the focus of the investigation. It was people they were surrounding themselves with that were.

Exactly. I doubt I’ll get any sort of actual evidence because, well there isn’t any.

This whole spy business is based off a disingenuous tweet by the president that people jumped to validate, using anything they could.You don’t get to the truth by starting with a conclusion and then searching for evidence to fit it. That’s what religious nuts do to try to make sense of things, and it seems Trump cultists do it too.

There is an investigation into Russian Meddling, against Trump. I invite you to look into that a bit with your bits of wisdom in mind.

Why do you assume there was no evidence of questionable contacts before the investigation started?

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: face23785
Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

Remember, Trumps words aren’t worth the air used to say them, so you’re going to have to do better than his statements and the theories of the right wing echo chamber that are based off of them.

Well, the NYT and Washington post articles pretty much admitted that the FBI sent a spy to get info from trump team members.

And I havent seen that disputed in any credible way, only the claim it was an "informant" not spy, which is laughable.

Bit I dont mind people being skeptical.

So you are saying if it does come out that the FBI sent Stefan Halper to get info on people like Page Papadopoulos and others, then you will change your mind?

Links to those articles that say without a doubt that the FBI sent spies into the Trump campaign?

I have already told you, the articles use the term "informant" which is just a clever way to try to differentiate this from the word spy.

But yes the articles exist showing that.

Many of them.

Here is the first one from the NYT.

mobile.nytimes.com...

Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling.

So they were after one of his advisors, and not Trump. Anything saying they were after Trump personally? Or are we making the leap in logic that people Trump surrounds himself with being under surveillance means he, himself was the target?

Those are two different things, which the president is trying to conflate to control the narrative the way he wants.

Now wait, you are now changing what you said.

Allow me to remind you.

Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

You said if it was shown people in trups campaign were spied on, you would change your mind.

That is what this artilce showed.

Now you want proof they were directly after trump?

I think that is not necessary to show abuse. Were the watergate people spying on just directly documents from MCGovern, or were they disgusting and criminal for spying on behavior of the campaign in general?

If the FBI was spying on trumps team, it would have clearly effected trump himself in a very negative way.

And by your own standards of what you said about "Trumps campaign" potentially being spied on, this should change your mind.

The relevant parts for context are the words before the ones you bolded, and the ones after. Picking out two parts of that statement and trying to make it say what you want doesn’t work. And is part of the problem.

Nothing you or the article said leads toward any evidence of the Obama administration planting a spy in Trumps campaign. Which is what this is supposedly about. I mean, that’s what Trump himself said. And it’s what I said I wanted to see evidence of. If there is any.

Man you are all over the place.

SO your last post said basically prove that this spy spied on trump himself.

When I show you that you originally didnt say it had to be on trump himself, but his campaign, you now say this isnt proof of a spy.

So are you another claiming that Halper was only an "informant" and thus not a spy? Or are you denying the FBI ever sent Halper?

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
That's semantics regarding "informant." Infiltrating a campaign or other and secretly providing intelligence would be considered espionage in any other setting, whether corporate or in foreign affairs.
a reply to: introvert

That is not correct.

The FBI did not infiltrate the campaign for the sake of spying on the campaign.

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: face23785

Odd characterization by the author of groups that people fall into. I know there are others like myself who believe that Trump's campaign eagerly sought information from the Russians and that the Russians were all too willing to spy on both parties to get in favor with whoever won. The Democrats turned them away, but eager novices like DJT Jr hopped to the bait.

And I think there's enough evidence for that stance.

What is an odd characterization is the notion the Steele dossier wasn't sourced by Russians.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
That's semantics regarding "informant." Infiltrating a campaign or other and secretly providing intelligence would be considered espionage in any other setting, whether corporate or in foreign affairs.
a reply to: introvert

That is not correct.

The FBI did not infiltrate the campaign for the sake of spying on the campaign.

Oh so now you know the FBI's INTENT!!!!

Hahahahaha!

Again, if the fbi was not interested in targeting the trump campaign, they would have warned them of attempts at russian influence, and questioned people like Page and papadopoulos on record, instead of sending a spy to get info on them and report back to the FBI.

The FBI spied on the trump campaign. Period.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I thought it's admitted now they had an "informant?"
a reply to: underwerks

“Informant” could mean anything. And it’s a giant leap to conflate that with “spy” in the sense it’s being used. And an even bigger leap to make that mean Obama placed a spy in the Trump campaign to disrupt it in some way.

Which is how this is being used, by the president of the United States no less. I can’t blame people for toeing the line, a lot of people believe that something has validity just because the president said it. I need more proof than that.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
That's semantics regarding "informant." Infiltrating a campaign or other and secretly providing intelligence would be considered espionage in any other setting, whether corporate or in foreign affairs.
a reply to: introvert

That is not correct.

The FBI did not infiltrate the campaign for the sake of spying on the campaign.

Do tell: Why did the FBI infiltrate the campaign?
2nd

ganjoa

a reply to: introvert

The size of this box they're attempting to fit us all in is so vast we can fit Montana in it and have room for Rhode Island.
When the lame *ss president blames the democrats for everything from rain to hemorrhoids it has to be a big big box.
As if I didn't carry enough guilt being raised Catholic.

originally posted by: ganjoa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
That's semantics regarding "informant." Infiltrating a campaign or other and secretly providing intelligence would be considered espionage in any other setting, whether corporate or in foreign affairs.
a reply to: introvert

That is not correct.

The FBI did not infiltrate the campaign for the sake of spying on the campaign.

Do tell: Why did the FBI infiltrate the campaign?
2nd

ganjoa

They didn't.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: face23785
Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

Remember, Trumps words aren’t worth the air used to say them, so you’re going to have to do better than his statements and the theories of the right wing echo chamber that are based off of them.

Well, the NYT and Washington post articles pretty much admitted that the FBI sent a spy to get info from trump team members.

And I havent seen that disputed in any credible way, only the claim it was an "informant" not spy, which is laughable.

Bit I dont mind people being skeptical.

So you are saying if it does come out that the FBI sent Stefan Halper to get info on people like Page Papadopoulos and others, then you will change your mind?

Links to those articles that say without a doubt that the FBI sent spies into the Trump campaign?

I have already told you, the articles use the term "informant" which is just a clever way to try to differentiate this from the word spy.

But yes the articles exist showing that.

Many of them.

Here is the first one from the NYT.

mobile.nytimes.com...

Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling.

So they were after one of his advisors, and not Trump. Anything saying they were after Trump personally? Or are we making the leap in logic that people Trump surrounds himself with being under surveillance means he, himself was the target?

Those are two different things, which the president is trying to conflate to control the narrative the way he wants.

Now wait, you are now changing what you said.

Allow me to remind you.

Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

You said if it was shown people in trups campaign were spied on, you would change your mind.

That is what this artilce showed.

Now you want proof they were directly after trump?

I think that is not necessary to show abuse. Were the watergate people spying on just directly documents from MCGovern, or were they disgusting and criminal for spying on behavior of the campaign in general?

If the FBI was spying on trumps team, it would have clearly effected trump himself in a very negative way.

And by your own standards of what you said about "Trumps campaign" potentially being spied on, this should change your mind.

The relevant parts for context are the words before the ones you bolded, and the ones after. Picking out two parts of that statement and trying to make it say what you want doesn’t work. And is part of the problem.

Nothing you or the article said leads toward any evidence of the Obama administration planting a spy in Trumps campaign. Which is what this is supposedly about. I mean, that’s what Trump himself said. And it’s what I said I wanted to see evidence of. If there is any.

Man you are all over the place.

SO your last post said basically prove that this spy spied on trump himself.

When I show you that you originally didnt say it had to be on trump himself, but his campaign, you now say this isnt proof of a spy.

So are you another claiming that Halper was only an "informant" and thus not a spy? Or are you denying the FBI ever sent Halper?

Don’t accuse me of being all over the place because I’m trying to hit the goalposts you are constantly dragging everywhere.

Informant doesn’t mean spy in this context. I know you don’t want to face that, because that’s the one thing this entire theory hangs on. But that’s what it is. It takes some nebulous definition of “spy” to make this even halfway work. Which is why I call crap on it.